"The first victory we can claim is that our hearts are free of hatred. Hence we say to those who persecute us and who try to dominate us: ‘You are my brother. I do not hate you, but you are not going to dominate me by fear. I do not wish to impose my truth, nor do I wish you to impose yours on me. We are going to seek the truth together’. THIS IS THE LIBERATION WHICH WE ARE PROCLAIMING."
Oswaldo José Payá Sardiñas (2002)

Nevertheless, that does not explain the plight of Juan Juan Almeida, the son of a high ranking "hero of the revolution" and a former member of the Ministry of the Interior. Reinaldo Escobar writing from Havana, Cuba offers an answer to this mystery:

Juan Juan Almeida was long favored because he enjoyed, in Cuba, a privilege that in any other place is merely a right: traveling the world. For a long time this problem of the travel permit was, for him, a procedure he paid no attention to, something like having to weigh your luggage at the airport. Any superficial analysis that might be made of his exceptional situation ended up concluding that this, and other benefits he then enjoyed, was due to his being the son of Juan Almeida Bosque, a select member of the highest revolutionary aristocracy, recently deceased.

One day J.J. fell into disgrace and they let him know that now his name was on another list, that of the excluded. Because of this, he is now not allowed to arrange a medical consultation at a hospital in Europe where, as he himself explains, he might have a chance to find a treatment for an illness that has found no solution in his own country. He wrote a book, conducted interviews, wrote letters, and last Friday, November 27, for the second time went out into the street with a poster on which, it is said, he asked for the resignation of the president of the Republic.

There you have the answer Juan Juan Almeida has fallen out of favor with the regime i.e. the Castro brothers and no longer has access to that world of top flight care and freedom of travel that belongs to the regime elite. He is now another Cuban citizen at the mercy of the nomenklatura that runs the island as its personal fiefdom as he once did but no longer can.

Thank you for your invitation and the opportunity to speak to you as we mark the twentieth anniversary of the dramatic breaking down of the closed borders, the cutting of the barbed wire, the demolishing of walls between the European nations, and, in the case of Germany, of the wall dividing two parts of the same nation. It was the end of the bipolar division not only of Europe, but, to a large measure, of the world as a whole. It was such a historically important moment that various people had the impression that henceforth calm would reign and the world would simply flourish.

That didn’t happen. History did not come to end, of course. And that makes it even more important to treat the present anniversary not only as an invitation to reflect on the present but above all as a challenge to consider the future. I will contribute to that reflection five remarks on the theme of European unification.

(1)

No one was completely prepared for such a rapid collapse of the Iron Curtain. Nor could they have been. It would have been unnatural. And so there ensued a phase of perplexity, a search for various alternatives, and uncertainty. Then NATO took the bold step of accepting new members, which had the effect of anchoring them and helped them concentrate on preparing to join the European Union. Subsequently the EU did indeed start to open its doors to the new democracies of Central and Eastern Europe. From time to time those countries cause it headaches of various kinds. But that is perfectly understandable. A democratic political culture cannot be created or renewed overnight. It takes a lot of time and in the meantime there are plenty of unanticipated problems to be solved. Communism ruled just once in modern times (and, hopefully, for the last time), so the phenomenon of post-Communism was also a novelty. We had to confront the consequences of the rule of fear that lasted for so many years, as well as all the dangers related to a redistribution of property without precedent in history. So there were and are lots of obstacles and we are only now acquiring experience of such a state of affairs.

I believe, nonetheless, that the West went about things in the right way. Any other approach would have given rise to even more anxieties for it and it would also have been more costly. Not only could it have seriously triggered a new struggle over spheres of influence, or the actual domination of one group by another, but the states that remained outside the western gates would most likely have turned into a stamping ground for various nationalists and populists, along with their armed militias, and also possibly a place of dangerous local conflicts, which would be all the more dangerous in that, for well-known reasons, no real peace conference took place after World War II to decide on a binding, precise and lasting post-war settlement in Europe. I think that many of those who until recently wielded a flag with a hammer and sickle would be capable, without much ado, of reaching for a national flag instead. We were able to see where that path could lead in the former Yugoslavia. But demons, as is well known, always awaken other demons. So no one can tell whether that contagion would not soon infect the western half of Europe. And we live in a period of history, when, as a result of globalization, any local conflict could easily develop into a world war.

So the approach adopted was the most natural in historical terms, and the most advantageous in practical terms. Moreover, it was an approach that could also be interpreted as an expression of thoughtful shared responsibility for the way things had evolved in the recent past, which were partly due, in their origins, to short-sighted concessions on the part of the democratic world. To sum up then: however bothersome we might have been to the European Union up to the present, it is worth putting up with it, because any alternative to the course of events to date would most likely have been much worse and more dangerous. In the circumstances, all one can ask of Europe is patience and understanding.

However, the question is what can we offer Europe? It has long been my opinion that after what we underwent at the time of the totalitarian system, we ought – or we are duty-bound even – to explain to others in a convincing manner what we went through, and make specific suggestions based on its various implications. It is not an easy task and I am not sure we’ve made a good job of it to date. The point is that totalitarian or authoritarian forms of government tend to have very inconspicuous beginnings and employ very ingenious means of controlling society. Only now, in hindsight, do many of us realize how deviously they were entangled in the totalitarian web. That all obliges us to be particularly circumspect. It should be the way we can help guarantee that what we endured will never be repeated.

What does it require?

Above all, clear and unequivocal solidarity with all those confronted by totalitarian or authoritarian regimes wherever they are in the world. And economic or other particular interests should not hinder such solidarity. Even a minor, discreet and well-intentioned compromise can have fatal consequences– even if only in the long term, or indirectly. One must not retreat in the face of evil, because it is in the nature of evil to take advantage of every concession. Besides, Europe has already had its own unfortunate experience of appeasement policies. Our support can help open-minded people or outspoken witnesses to the situation in North Korea, Burma, Iran, Tibet, Belarus, Cuba or anywhere else, much more than we think. But it will help us too. It will help us build a better world and also to be more true to ourselves; in other words, to put into practice the values that we proclaim in general terms.

Recently the European Parliament awarded the Sakharov Prize to Memorial, the Russian association that monitors how human rights are respected in Russia. I think that was an important act. I recall how important it once was in my country when the French President invited us – the opposition – to a working breakfast during his state visit – against the wishes of the state leadership. These are only seemingly superficial matters. That is how things operate in totalitarian regimes: a single breakfast or a single suppressed student demonstration can – in certain circumstances – set history moving.

Agent Rodney, or whatever the name is of the person I challenged to a verbal duel, lost by not showing up, but that is past history. The Nation lost by being discredited in the eyes of the world and, what is worse, the people lost, my poor people, whom they want to burden with the full weight of fanaticism that they themselves feed on.

According to Human Rights Watch the Cuban government "employs so-called repudiation meetings (mitines de repudio), or acts of repudiation, to humiliate and intimidate dissidents publicly, sometimes violently." The sad part is that some of the participants in these fascist attacks are probably taking part in this violent propaganda exercise in the Cuban dictatorship's version of Orwell's 2 minutes hate to avoid being on the receiving end of such an action themselves.

Reinaldo's essay is titled: "To begin to forgive" and the last lines of the entry describe his return home:

When I got back to my house, I found it full of friends, among them Father José Conrado who gave me a hug, and counsel I will never forget: “Forgive them.”

Based on Reinaldo's actions thus far he is following Mahatma Gandhi's dictum: "To forgive is not to forget. The merit lies in loving in spite ofthe vivid knowledge that the one that must be loved is not a friend." Video of the entire affair is already beginning to be uploaded to youtube. The victims and witnesses to the events are describing what they saw. Below is the first video just prior to the beginning of the attack. As new ones are added they'll be added to this blog entry.

Friday, November 20, 2009

"To forgive is not to forget. The merit lies in loving in spite ofthe vivid knowledge that the one that must be loved is not a friend.There is no merit in loving an enemy when you forget him for a friend."

-According to the 1989 indictment, Reinaldo Ruiz was allowed to land planes in Cuba to refuel after dropping drug cargo off the Cuban coast. Drug-smuggling motorboats would come from Florida to pick up the cargo, and Cuban Coast Guard radar monitored U.S. Coast Guard cutters to help the smugglers evade them. The indictments demonstrated the foolishness of sharing intelligence on drug operations with Havana.

-According to the U.S. indictment of Panama's Manuel Noriega, he traveled to Cuba in 1984 after Castro offered to mediate a disagreement between the drug cartel and Noriega.

-In a 1991 Frontline documentary, Cuba and Cocaine, U.S. Coast Guard Lt. Commander Jeff Karonis, stated, "We would observe in the middle of the day an air drop going on inside Cuban waters. The scenario would be for a small twin-engine airplane with maybe 1,000 to 2,000 pounds of cocaine to fly over Cuba, drop the drugs to a predesignated rendezvous point to several boats. Then it would exit back down off Cuba, and many times a Cuban military vessel would be in the immediate vicinity, right on scene with them.''

-In 1996, Jorge Cabrera was charged with importing 6,000 pounds of cocaine. At the time of his arrest, The Herald reported that Cabrera was carrying a photo of himself with Fidel Castro. Cabrera made a $20,000 donation to the 1996 Democratic presidential campaign after being approached in Havana in 1995 by anti-embargo activist Vivian Mannerud.

The indictment and capture of Manuel Noriega and his subsequent trial exposed an international narcotrafficking network with high ranking Cuban officials. The Castro regime responded by eliminating possible witnesses that would implicate the brothers in a show trial followed by speedy public execution by firing squad. Cuba is a totalitarian state with one man, one party rule and on that basis along with grand jury testimony implicating the dictator what are the odds that Fidel and Raul Castro are not deeply involved?

Thursday, November 19, 2009

"Despite significant obstacles to research, Human Rights Watch documented more than 40 cases in which Cuba has imprisoned individuals for “dangerousness” under Raúl Castro because they tried to exercise their fundamental rights. We believe there are many more. The “dangerous” activities in these cases have included handing out copies of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, staging peaceful marches, writing news articles critical of the government, and attempting to organize independent unions." - Human Rights Watch (2009)

The Raúl Castro government has applied the “dangerousness” law not only to dissenters and critics of the government, but to a broad range of people who choose not to cooperate with the state. We found that failing to attend pro-government rallies, not belonging to official party organizations, and being unemployed are all considered signs of “antisocial” behavior, and may lead to “official warnings” and even incarceration in Raúl Castro’s Cuba. In a January 2009 campaign called “Operation Victory,” dozens of individuals in eastern Cuba—most of them youth—were charged with “dangerousness” for being unemployed. So was a man from Sancti Spíritus who could not work because of health problems, and was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment in August 2008 for being unemployed.

One must participate in the propaganda exercise and in some cases carry out acts of repression against fellow citizens in the Cuban dictatorship's version of Orwell's 2 minutes hate which is the act of repudiation that in Cuba can go on a lot longer than two minutes or risk being on the receiving end. You can see and hear a sampling of how they operate in the video below beginning at 00:50:

A word about Human Rights WatchWhen a totalitarian regime is criticized it must attack the critic and question their motives. It is standard operating procedure. It has been repeatedly used against Amnesty International, UN Human Rights experts such asChristine Chanet, and against Human Rights Watch.Following the release of the report the Cuban diplomatic mission in Washington released a statement in which it described Human Rights Watch's "evaluation of human rights in Cuba is illegitimate and illegal."First who and what is Human Rights Watch? Therevision and mission statement is clear as is the fact that they have a track record of being verbally attacked by numerous governments across the ideological divide. First Human Rights Watch does not recieve directly or indirectly any government funding and rely on private donations. Secondly, the organization arose out of Helsinki Watch which monitored Soviet and Eastern European compliance with the 1975 Helsinki Accords after their founding in 1978 and Americas Watch founded in 1981 which monitored authoritarian and military dictatorships in the Hemisphere and was criticized at the time for bias against El Salvador, Guatemala, by the Reagan Administration and was accused by The Wall Street Journal of "a gentler standard to U.S. adversaries in Central America than to U.S. friends." Now this version of events is provided by the self described"progressives" at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. The organization Human Rights Watch was to formally come into existence in 1998 as a fusion of these two organizations and similar counterparts in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.Now that we have a better perspective on Human Rights Watch and in the spirit of the phrase a picture is worth a thousand words. Around the same time that Helsinki Watch and Americas Watch were doing their job on behalf of human rights Fidel Castro was hosting leaders of the Argentine military junta in Havana.

Fidel Castro, the Argentine Military Junta and the Dirty WarOn the picture on the right is Fidel Castro with Argentine foreign minister Nicanor Costa Mendez of the Argentine military junta that according to a number of sources extrajudicially executed and disappeared as many as 30,000 Argentines between 1976 and 1983 in the Dirty War meeting in Havana at the Non-Aligned Movement gathering.

In the case of Marxist ruler Mengistu Haile Mariam or as Fidel Castro referred to him "Comrade Mengistu" there is a lot of information demonstrating the close working relationship between Mengistu and both Castro brothers. Cuba sent the first wave of what would become 5,000 Cuban troops to fight government rebels in December 1977-January 1978. In September of 1978 Fidel Castro arrived in Ethiopia to address both Ethiopian and Cuban troops and claim both victory and the Ethiopian revolution's popular support:

"Comrade Cubans, I can recall those days of December 1977 and January 1978 when we said farewell to the first Cuban internationalist combatants who were leaving for Ethiopia. [...]Eighteen months later we have returned to a Ethiopia which is victorious be cause of its combative sons' heroism and the support of international solidarity, as Comrade Mengistu stated 2 days ago. Moreover, it is also an already powerful Ethiopia. Tuesday's popular parade confirmed the enormous popular support for this revolutionary change. Yesterday's military parade tells us of the degree of organization and discipline achieved by the combative and courageous fraternal Ethiopian people. The rapid revolutionary offensive of the Ethiopian and Cuban troops practically annihilated the enemy. [...]Ethiopian brothers, together with you we have fought and we have won. Together with you we are ready to fight again and to win again. Together with you we pledge: Fatherland or death, we shall win!

Castro's September 1978 speech places Cuban combatants on the ground in December of 1977. The importance of these dates will become evident later on. The next excerpt is from a conversation with the then East German dictator Erik Honecker discussing the situation in Ethiopia and Fidel Castro's assesment of Mengistu in February of 1977 following a visit and meeting with him:

Mengistu strikes me as a quiet, serious, and sincere leader who is aware of the power of the masses. He is an intellectual personality who showed his wisdom on 3 February. The rightists wanted to do away with the leftists on 3 February. The prelude to this was an exuberant speech by the Ethiopian president in favor of nationalism. Mengistu preempted this coup. He called the meeting of the Revolutionary Council one hour early and had the rightist leaders arrested and shot. A very consequential decision was taken on 3 February in Ethiopia. The political landscape of the country changed, which has enabled them to take steps that were impossible before then. Before it was only possible to support the leftist forces indirectly, now we can do so without any constraints.

Fidel Castro with close ally Mengistu Haile Mariam

The dates are important because it coincides with the beginning of the "Red Terror" in which 2,000 Africans were slaughtered. This was a purge of political opponents. According to press accounts: "Suspects were rounded up, some shot, others garrotted. The bodies were thrown on the streets." There would be a Cuban military presence on the ground until 1988. In December 2006 Ethiopia's former dictator was found guilty of the extrajudicial killing of thousands of political opponents and his involvement in a famine which killed one million people and found guilty of genocide in absentia. A Reuters video report on the 2006 trial is available below:

Naturally the Cuban government would not have been pleased with Reed Brody Human Rights Watch's legal counsel's reaction to the trial and verdict at the time: "This is a man whose regime was marked by some of the worst atrocities of our time. Thousands of political killings [were carried out and] over 100,000 people died as a result of forced relocations."

No doubt the Castro brothers and all those officials in the dictatorship who have committed gross human rights violations feel a little uncomfortable when they see their close allies being tried and condemned for crimes against humanity and genocide as the ultimate condemnation by history. Not to mention that groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International "would very much like to see [Mengistu] physically brought to justice--not justice in absentia." Has anyone given any thought to what responsibility Cuban leadership shares with the events in Ethiopia? Difficult questions that the dictatorship in Cuba would rather not answer truthfully or be held accountable.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

“One of the goals of this concert is to remind us of the importance of the music that was played not only here but also in all the countries that were liberating themselves. This music was with us at all the big rallies; it somehow expressed the general will and was one of the factors that created the atmosphere of the time.” - Vaclav Havel 2009

[All the videos embedded here are from Saturday's Concert celebrating the Velvet Revolution titled It's Here held at the Prague Crossroads]

...Just a perfect day, you make me forget myselfI thought I was someone else, someone goodYou're going to reap just what you sow You're going to reap just what you sow ...
Lou Reed, Perfect Day

Celebrations across the world centered in Prague but as far away as Mongolia and in the United States just to name two of the many places:Houston and Kansas City will honor and remember the brave men and women who twenty years ago today began a series of actions that resulted in the triumph of love and truth. It was not inevitable, but a combination of providence, free will, and principled human action. The "Velvet Revolution" achieved profound non-violent change without wholesale slaughter and violence associated historically with revolutions. A cursory look would claim that the "revolution" took 11 days in November for the Communists to relinquish power. In reality it began at least in 1976 after beatings and arrest of the rock band the Plastic People of the Universe led to a number of intellectuals, Vaclav Havel, among them drafting and signingCharter 77challenging the Czech communists to honor the rights outlined in their own constitution and in the Helsinki accords which the communist government had signed in 1975.The great Indian reformer, Mohandas Gandhi, was critical of the revolutionary stating "I have criticized the revolutionary because I have felt for him. He has the same right to hold me to be in error as I believe him to be in error." He offered an additional insight that"Impatience will blur the revolutionary’s vision and lead him astray." This describes many of the revolutionaries of France in 1789 or the Bolsheviks in 1917 but it does not describe the men and women of 1989. On the other hand Gandhi spoke positively of reformers which sound much like dissidents: "A reformer has to sail not with the current, often he has to go against it, even though it may cost him his life." The Velvet Revolution has also been called a Spiritual Revolution and that again fits with Gandhi's description of a profound process reform born of an awakening when he says that: "Every Reform means awakening. Once truly awakened, the nation will not be satisfied with reform only in one department of life." What is described as the Velvet Revolution was a spiritual awakening that led to profound reforms of an entire society.

What was achieved in 1989? It was a rejection of totalitarianism of both the lie and hatred on which it thrived. It was a rebirth of freedom and of normal human relationships. I've had the privilege to have walked the streets and breathed the air of Prague in May of 1990, barely five months after Havel went to the Castle in December of 1989, and to return nearly twenty years later in October of 2009 to see the changes that had taken place. Although Czechs may no longer look in awe at all that they have accomplished after walking around the center of the city visiting shops and a grocery store, and talking with Czechs over a few beers I left impressed by all that had been accomplished, and with an overwhelming sense of happiness at bearing witness to a flowering of freedom and creativity. In his address to the European Parliament on November 11 Havel outlined the daunting challenges faced after the power transition:

A democratic political culture cannot be created or renewed overnight. It takes a lot of time and in the meantime there are plenty of unanticipated problems to be solved. Communism ruled just once in modern times (and, hopefully, for the last time), so the phenomenon of post-Communism was also a novelty. We had to confront the consequences of the rule of fear that lasted for so many years, as well as all the dangers related to a redistribution of property without precedent in history. So there were and are lots of obstacles and we are only now acquiring experience of such a state of affairs.

The preceding observation is not that of a wild eyed revolutionary but a prudent and principled reformer. Over the past few days the concerts, celebrations, and lectures in Prague and the reflections that the main participants in the events of 1989 have made and the conclusions they have reached should generate much dialogue and debate in the future. For example Vaclav Havel raised the call to vigilanceat a conference at Charles University titled “Freedom and its Enemies”:

The era of dictatorships and totalitarian systems has not ended at all. It may have ended in a traditional form as we know it from the 20th century, but new, far more sophisticated ways of controlling society are being born. It requires alertness, carefulness, caution, study and a detached view.

Towards the end of the concert celebrating the Velvet Revolution at the Prague Crossroads titled “It’s Here at Last”, featuring Joan Baez, Suzanne Vega, Lou Reed and soprano Reneé Fleming, Václav Havel dedicated the last song of the concert, Oh Freedom, "to the people of North Korea, Burma, Tibet, Belarus, Iran, Darfur, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Venezuela and other countries whose citizens live under oppression."

Thank you President Havel for remembering the victims of repression at a moment of joyful celebration and for having consistently defended captive peoples around the world putting into action Aung San Suu Kyi’s request to "Please use your freedom to promote ours."

Friday, November 13, 2009

1. a person of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities.
2. a person who, in the opinion of others, has heroic qualities or has performed a heroic act and is regarded as a model or ideal: He was a local hero when he saved the drowning child.

Adam Michnik, Poland

A brief biography on one of the founders of the Committee for the Defense of Workers (KOR) and Solidarity activist during the struggle against martial law during the 1980s. He was a Solidarity expert in the Round Table Talks between the government and the dissidents. Mr. Michnik, a former dissident, historian, writer, lecturer, politician and journalist, has been the editor-in-chief of Gazeta Wyborcza (Election News), the first independent Polish daily newspaper, since its founding in 1989.

His books include Letters from Freedom: Post-Cold War Realities and Perspectives, Church and the Left, and Letters from Prison and Other Essays.

The purpose of this brief profile is to encourage the reader to search further and read Michnik's collection of essays and watch the documentaries and films on the struggle of the Polish people to obtain and maintain their freedom, and in the process learn how to make the world a better place.

Video: Daniel Cohn-Bendit and Adam Michnik discuss the repercussions of 1968 at the University of Warsaw, 9th March 2008

On the Struggle Against Totalitarianism

The fighting man sometimes comes to resemble his adversary. If in the struggle against totalitarianism, one uses totalitarian methods, one imperceptibly alters the shape of one's cause. In the struggle against a monster, one can become a monster oneself. In such a case, even if one scores a victory, the battle is lost because a kingdom of monsters is created for oneself. Were it to happen that the external thing one fights ruins one internally, the struggle would have no meaning. [Michnik quotes Karl Jaspers] in Letters from Prison and Other Essays1987

On the role of the Catholic ChurchWhoever wants such a Church, whoever expects these things from Catholic priests, is-- whether he likes it or not-- asking for the political reduction of the Christian religion. For we do not need a Church that is locked up, that is hidden behind the walls of a particular political ideology. We need an open Church, a Church that takes the whole world into the arms of the Cross. Letters from Prison and Other Essays 1987

On DictatorshipsI also realize that while condemning the dictatorships of [Rafael] Trujillo or [Augusto] Pinochet, I should remember the dictatorship of Fidel Castro. Brutal power is equally repugnant whether executed under a red banner or a black one.

Why did Solidarity renounce violenceWhy did Solidarity renounce violence? This question returned time and again in my conversations with foreign observers. . . . No one in Poland is able to prove today that violence will help us to dislodge Soviet troops from Poland and to remove the Communists from power. The USSR has such enormous military power that confrontation is simply unthinkable. In other words: we have no guns. Letters from Prison and Other Essaysreviewed in Commentary 1987

This Oscar nominee and winner of the Golden Palm award at the Cannes Film Festival is a riveting look at life in Gdansk, Poland in the years preceding the historic Solidarity movement. In August 1980, a journalist is sent to a strike at the Gdansk docks to gather damaging information about the organizers. But after witnessing their courage and conviction, he begins to see the possibility for change ... if others are willing to stand with them.

Difference between pacifism and nonviolence

"Pacifism as a mass movement aims to avoid suffering; pacifists often say that no cause is worth suffering or dying for. The ethos of Solidarity is based on an opposite premise—that there are causes worth suffering and dying for." Letter from Gdansk Prison" 1985From Solidarity to Democracy WSJ November 6, 2009

“I personally? I am personally afraid of myself. Afraid of doing something stupid or indecent. A man must always fear something. But in general I am a happy man. I have lived to see these times... We are perhaps the first generation over the whole century which can say our life is drawing to a successful close. For I was first imprisoned when I was 18. It was after 1965. Which of us could say at that time that we would see all that we have today: a free Poland, free Ukraine, and so on? Interview in The Day (June 19, 2001)

Advice to Young Journalists

“Two things. Freedom and truth. This is our policy. We are called upon to defend these two values: freedom and truth.” Interview in The Day (June 19, 2001)

Video: Report on the Solidarity Movement 1970s - 1980s

On Democracy

"Democracy is a daily plebiscite. Every day we decide whether we want to live in democracy or we don't want to. Whether we will defend it or we won't defend it."